Fight Or Run?

The political and economic system in the USA is collapsing. What can you do to prepare?

1. Do nothing.
2. Stay and fight.
3. Leave for another country.
4. Stay, but be prepared to flee.

Currently, I'm in the "do nothing" phase. Blogging helps raise awareness. Eventually, I have to transition to more concrete action.

For personal reasons, I can't make any more active preparation moves right now.

"Stay and fight!" is attractive. For personal reasons, I can't move. "This is my home and I'm not leaving!" is a reasonable attitude.

A pro-State troll says "If you don't like it, then leave!" Why shouldn't the statists be forced to leave? Why don't the statists all leave one area, and leave only market anarchists or voluntaryists?

Obviously the State can't voluntarily cede control of any area. First, State thugs never voluntarily give up power. Second, if one area was really free, it would be so prosperous that the most ambitious people from other areas would move there. The reason other people move to the USA is that the USA used to have much more economic freedom than other countries.

"Stay and fight!" doesn't involve violence. It can be agorism. It can be other preparations. It can involve supporting less corrupt politicians, although that's probably a waste of time.

It can be risky to organize a militia or be prepared to use force to defend your freedom or your property. Once you make preparations, State thugs will target you. Undercover police may infiltrate your group. If you are forced to act, you're hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned by the State. No matter how loyal a group you find, they may not be reliable when facing a military assault squad.

Another option is to leave for another country. But to where? The collapse is global.

The Free State Project is having some success in New Hampshire. However, people there still pay property taxes and other taxes. I'll be impressed when some people stop paying property taxes and don't lose their homes.

I've heard that some Latin American countries are attracting ex-US citizens. As more people flee there, it may become more attractive. In those countries, the government is flagrantly corrupt, even more than the USA. People don't trust the government at all. The government is smaller, leading to greater freedom.

In some areas of Mexico, the government has effectively collapsed. Maybe some market anarchists should move there, make peace with the drug cartels, and start a market anarchist colony? I haven't seen anyone try that. (The drug cartels probably would agree to "You can go and operate your business. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone.")

There may be some 3rd world countries, that could be colonized by an ambitious group of market anarchists. The difficulty is that, if you do have a successful market anarchist community of 100-1000 people, then it's a target for invasion. Even if you have a strong market anarchist community, there's no defense against being carpet bombed. All the State media has to do is say "Those anarchists are selling guns/gambling/drugs/terrorism!", and the zombies will support an invasion.

Another option is to stay and fight, but be prepared to flee if necessary. It depends how bad things get and how rapidly things decay. In a SHTF scenario, you may only need to survive for a few weeks before order starts being restored. If falsely charged with a crime, you may decide to hope for a fair trial, or fleeing might be smarter.

The value of gold and silver is not for a SHTF scenario. As people point out, gold and silver are useless when you're starving or robbed. However, in a SHTF scenario, gold and silver will certainly be more valuable than paper.

The main value of gold and silver is that, if you can hang on until order is restored, then you preserve your purchasing power and your savings. Even in a SHTF scenario, gold and silver can be used to buy things. However, there's a risk that you may be robbed, when others find out you have gold and silver.

"Stockpile food and ammo and bunker up" isn't as useful as it sounds. If a determined enemy sieges you, then you are SOL. Unless you're with a larger group of prepared people, solo preparations won't work.

I'm pretty sure that the collapse is coming. I have no idea what strategy is best. Right now, I have practically zero options. I'm leaning towards "Stay and fight!", but I should be openminded. It depends on how bad things get, and how fast the collapse occurs.

Fear Of Strangers

This story is horrible. A man murdered an 8 year old boy. The boy was walking home alone for the first time.

The State media loves stories like this. They are a hidden advertisement for the State.

The State police are the heroes, catching the criminal. Even without a State police monopoly, this criminal probably would have been caught.

Much police work does not involve clearcut crime. For example, there are some NYPD policemen who do nothing but kidnap people who "operate a taxi without a license". Those police are criminals employed by the taxi medallion cartel, rather than protectors of freedom.

By overhyping incidents where the police succeed and solve real crime, that reinforces the illusion that everything the State police do is beneficial.

There's another fnord in this story. A child was murdered by a stranger. Therefore, every stranger is a bloodthirsty murderer. Everyone is a potential murderer, and the State police monopoly is needed to keep them in line.

Just because there was one criminal, does not mean that everyone is at risk.

Most people are decent. Only a minority are criminals. However, State law restricts everyone's freedom, just to catch the handful of bad people.

For example, some people used a gun to commit a crime. Therefore, everyone other than policemen should be barred from owning guns. Fear is used to promote the State control agenda. The propaganda ignores the correct solution; owning a gun is the best defense against violent crime.

The State media loves stories like this one. The police are heroes, solving a real crime. This is propaganda, creating the illusion that everything police do is beneficial. By hyping one evil person, this creates the illusion that every stranger is a potential criminal, reinforcing the need for the State police monopoly.

It is horrible that the boy was murdered. It is interesting to notice the hidden advertisements, in the way the State media presents the story. The hype helps promote the State.

Roger Clemens Mistrial

This story is interesting. In a pre-trial ruling, the judge ordered that prosecutors could not introduce evidence of Andy Pettite's wife saying that her husband told her that Roger Clemens said he used steriods. That is hearsay and therefore not admissible evidence.

The prosecutors disobeyed the judge's order. The judge ordered a mistrial.

It makes no difference if the prosecutors disobeyed the order due to gross negligence, or on purpose. As US Attorneys, they should know better.

The US Attorneys are political appointees. Insiders pick which lawyers get to enforce their stupid laws. It is not a merit-based system. It is a corruption-based system.

This is unfair. The prosecutors broke the rules. They get a mulligan and can try again?

Shouldn't there be a penalty for the prosecutors who flagrantly disobeyed the judge's orders? Shouldn't they be jailed for contempt of court, fined, or have their law license suspended?

There should be no restrictions on what evidence a defendant can introduce or what arguments he is allowed to make. There should be restrictions on the prosecutor.

For example, someone who operated a medical marijuana store in California was prosecuted for violating Federal law. The judge barred his lawyers from mentioning that it was a California-legal medical marijuana store. That was obviously unfair.

Suppose that Roger Clemens' lawyer broke the rules. The judge would probably have jailed him for "contempt of court" and revoked his law license. Why do the prosecutors get away with disobeying a judge's direct order? They're supposed to know better.

Suppose Roger Clemens' lawyer made a "jury nullification" argument. He almost certainly would have been sanctioned. (Jury nullification is appropriate in this case, because "lying to Congress" isn't a real crime. It's OK for politicians and policemen to lie to you, but it's a serious crime for you to lie to them.)

Suppose that Roger Clemens' lawyer said "WTF? Doesn't the government have better things to do, than pursue my client? The banks stole trillions of dollars. They committed massive foreclosure fraud and perjury. Why weren't they prosecuted? Is this trial really worth all the money the government has spent?" His lawyer would probably have been sanctioned, if he said that.

Why should prosecutors get away with breaking the rules?

Maybe Roger Clemens' lawyer did a brilliant job during jury selection, and he was headed for an acquittal. All the prosecutor has to do is break the rules, and he gets to start over with a new jury?

Why not wait until after the trial was over, to award the mistrial? If the jury acquitted, then Roger Clemens goes free. If the jury convicted, then give Roger Clemens a new trial. Roger Clemens is unfairly disadvantaged by the prosecutor's error. Maybe the jury would have acquitted him anyway?

Why should the prosecutor get a mulligan, after flagrantly breaking the rules?

This isn't someone getting away with murder on a technicality. This is a trial that shouldn't have happened in the first place. So what if Roger Clemens took steroids and lied about it? Why should I care? He isn't going to break into my home and rob me or physically assault me. What is accomplished, by sending Roger Clemens to prison?

The job of a US attorney is literally to say "This person should be kidnapped and tortured." Most Federal trials are for things that are falsely treated as crimes. Most criminal trials are as stupid and pointless and wasteful as the Roger Clemens trial. It is relatively rare, when it's a clearcut real crime.

Roger Clemens is going to pay extra legal fees, due to the mistrial. Why should he be forced to pay his lawyers more, because the prosecutors broke the rules?

Why should I pay more in taxes, for this stupid pointless trial? Why should I pay more in taxes, for the cost of a re-trial, after the prosecutor flagrantly broke the law?

The Roger Clemens perjury trial was a farce from the beginning. More serious perjury has gone unprosecuted. Lehman Brothers' CEO and CFO should have been prosecuted under Sarbanes-Oxley for their Repo 105 accounting fraud. (Accounting fraud is a type of perjury.) Bank executives and lawyers forged mortgage foreclosure paperwork, clearcut perjury, and were not prosecuted.

Prosecutors are cracking down on Roger Clemens, who is a celebrity but not a true insider. This helps cover up the insiders who get away with crime. Public attention is focused on Roger Clemens and not real criminals.

It is offensive that prosecutors can break the rules and get away with it. Roger Clemens should get an acquittal due too the prosecutor's crime, but he won't. The prosecutors should be sanctioned, but that won't happen. Insiders who committed more serious crimes should be prosecuted, but that won't happen.

There are two justice systems, one for insiders and one for everyone else. A prosecutor is an insider. He can flagrantly disobey a judge's direct order with no negative consequences. A prosecutor can choose to pursue pointless show trials, while ignoring more serious crimes.

Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea

This story was interesting. Scientists have discovered antibiotic resistant gonorrhea.

Refuting the "creationists", this is evidence of evolution.

Vaccines are a legitimate way to treat disease. A vaccine enhances the body's natural immunity. However, I do object to the current trend of having too many vaccines.

An antiobiotic is not a legitimate way to treat disease. Over time, the bacteria develop antibiotic resistance.

Suppose that 99.9999% of the bacteria are killed by antibiotics. Those that survive, are breeding antibiotic resistance. By random chance and mutations, some bacteria have antibiotic resistance.

No matter what precautions you take, over time, antibiotic resistant bacteria will spread. (Also, as vaccines are more commonplace, vaccine-resistant viruses will spread. According to the mainstream science for HIV/AIDS, HIV is a vaccine-resistant virus, due to rapid mutations.)

The State medical cartel promotes symptom-suppressing drugs over other treatments. There may be other better treatments. They are suppressed by the State.

State scientists are finding new antibiotics, patenting them, and charging a high fee. The antibiotic resistant bacteria lead to higher profits for drug corporations!

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a serious problem. Tuberculosis is making a comeback. The State medical cartel promotes research into new antibiotics, and suppresses other techniques. Due to evolution, antibiotics are at best a temporary solution to a disease.

Caylee's Law

Casey Anothony was acquitted of murder. She may have actually done it, but there was insufficient evidence. (Even if she did do it, the State isn't a valid party to this dispute. Only the father or other relatives have standing. Casey Anthony was accused of "destroying State property".)

To close that loophole, State thugs are promoting "Caylee's Law". It will now be a felony, if parents don't contact police immediately when their child disappears.

Why not simplify the process? Why not say "Anybody acquitted by a jury is guilty of a felony!"? That would make the intent clear.

Prosecutors like to pile on lesser charges, and hope some stick. Whenever prosecutors don't like someone, they will charge you with as many crimes as possible. That's an incentive for a plea bargain. That also allows prosecutors to claim victory, when the jury acquits of the serious charges but convicts of lesser charges. (Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder but convicted of "lying to the police", and was sentenced to time served.)

One rule of thumb is "It's a bad idea to pass a law, in reaction to one incident." Unfortunately, politicians love to pass new laws to fix fake emergencies.

Many people think "I would call the police if my child disappeared." It you *WANT* to call the police, you may do so now. You don't need a law to *FORCE* you to call the police. (I object to the State police monopoly. Given that it exists, you should ask them for help in a real emergency.)

How many parents are thinking "If my child disappeared, I wouldn't call the police. If only there was a law forcing me to call the police when my child mysteriously disappears!" That shows how stupid "Caylee's Law" is.

There are legitimate reasons you might not want to call the police. Maybe you didn't declare your child as State property (get a birth certificate)? Maybe you are homeschooling your child, without getting explicit permission from the State? Maybe you have a dispute with an ex-spouse, who is looking after the children without telling you?

There is another important point. The mainstream media and statists get angry, whenever someone is acquitted. Why is there no anger and outrage, over people who are wrongfully convicted? Why is there no anger and outrage, when prosecutors commit crimes in order to secure a conviction?

"Caylee's Law" is an excellent example of a stupid law. People are asking for a law, forcing them to do what they would do anyway.

Horrible Bosses - Horrible Propaganda

There's a new "comedy" film out. As usual, there's a hidden advertisement for the State. "Horrible Bosses" contains many evil fnords.

The propaganda is:

My boss is an evil abusive jerk. My only recourse is murder/violence.

That's slave-oriented thinking.

A sane person in a really free market would say:

My boss is an abusive jerk. I'll find a new job. I'll try to start my own business.

This propaganda movie emphasizes slave/State values. The characters don't consider switching jobs. This is a hidden advertisement for State violence against small business owners. (Notice how 2 out of 3 of the main characters are employed by abusive bosses in small businesses - construction and a dentist.)

Most people will take the narrow view and blame their abusive boss. They don't blame the State and a corrupt system. Slaves are forced to give up their surplus labor via taxes. The State allocates this surplus by violence and political maneuvering. The system guarantees that the most evil people wind up owning everything and making all the decisions. High taxes support parasites and psychopaths. High taxes make it hard to save up money and start a business.

Most people will falsely blame their evil boss. They should blame the corrupt system. The State was set up by evil people for their own benefit.

My employer has an explicit State-backed monopoly. My bosses got their jobs due to political maneuvering. They are not people who could build a successful business in a really free market.

The characters all reconcile with their bosses at the end of the movie. In my experience, that *NEVER* happens. If you have a lousy boss, your only recourse is to switch jobs. I have *NEVER* seen a lousy work environment get better.

There's another evil fnord in the movie. The characters try to hire a hitman. If you try to hire a hitman on the Internet, it's 99+% likely that you're going to hire an undercover cop, rather than someone who will really help you.

The movie "Horrible Bosses" has many evil fnords. Only a slave would try to murder his boss. A sane person would quit and get a new job. A bad work environment *ALMOST NEVER* improves. Also, if you try to hire a hitman, you're almost definitely going to hire an undercover cop.

"Horrible Bosses" emphasizes slave values and not free thinking. The three main characters don't decide "Let's quit and start our own business!", which is how free people would act in a really free market.

Two Kinds Of Psychopaths

There is some confusion, regarding the term "psychopath". I have seen the term used to describe two different criminal personality types.

In this post, I'll refer to these two psychopath types as "psychopath-criminal" and "psychopath-Madoff". When I say psychopath, I mean psychopath-Madoff.

A psychopath-criminal has the "abused productive" personality type. A psychopath-criminal gets frustrated at a psychopath-Madoff-controlled world, and turns to crime. A psychopath-criminal is not very smart. He makes dumb mistakes, leading to arrest.

If you have the "abused productive" personality type and are intelligent, then you'll find a decent (but not awesome) job in the productive sector of the economy. That will be enough success to deter the typical "abused productive" person from crime. Unfortunately, as the State collapses, it's becoming harder and harder for a typical "abused productive" person to earn a living. Most new "jobs" are in the parasite sector of the economy, and are taken by parasites or psychopaths.

Here is an example of a psychopath-criminal. Look at the photo.



I previously mentioned that you can read personality type by the "laugh lines" on a person's face. A psychopath-Madoff typically has nearly vertical laugh lines. Someone with the "abused productive" personality type typically has 45 degree angle laugh lines. This criminal has 45 degree angle laugh lines. (These are merely indications, and not absolute proof.)

Also, this guy is an idiot. He got caught because he brought the girl he kidnapped to his parole officer's meeting.

This criminal does not have the parasitic personality type. He has the "abused productive" personality type. He got frustrated and turned to crime and kidnapping. A psychopath-Madoff would not need to kidnap a young woman. He would seduce her and psychologically dominate her.

This is interesting. I looked at several photos of criminals. They had the "abused productive" personality type and not the parasitic personality type. They really are criminals. However, they were "abused productive" people who couldn't fit in. They were abused by the psychopath-Madoffs, got frustrated, and turned to violent crime.

One conspiracy theory is "The State justice system protects parasites/psychopaths from retaliation by their victims." Here is an example. Suppose an abusive parasitic coworker lies about me, and I am unfairly fired. If I seek true justice and punch the scumbag, then I would be treated as a criminal. Seeking justice through the State legal system would be pointless. In this manner, the State prevents justice, because you can't punch someone who deserves it. If I said "It was OK to punch him. He was a scumbag who needed to be punched.", State "justice" wouldn't accept that as a valid excuse. According to State "justice", lying about someone and unfairly firing them is 100% legal.

However, exposed to a lifetime of such abuse, some people crack and then kill a bunch of people or commit other crimes.

For example, if Jared Loughner was able to find a decent job, he probably would not have gotten frustrated and went on his killing spree. Due to the State and psychopath-Madoffs, Jared Loughner wasn't able to fit in. He figured out that something was wrong, but didn't understand the problem like I can.

The real danger comes from the psychopath-Madoffs. They aren't criminals in the State-recognized sense. They are very dangerous. In fact, the current organization of the State explicitly facilitates theft by psychopaths. Under "color of law", psychopath-Madoff theft is legitimate. Under "color of law", psychopath theft is backed by the full violent evil power of the State.

A psychopath-criminal might rob a bank with a gun, which will lead to getting caught eventually. A psychopath-Madoff might lose trillions of dollars speculating on mortgages and then get the government to give him a bailout. Clearly, the psychopath-Madoff is much more dangerous than the psychopath-criminal.

For example, Bernard Madoff played the State like a fiddle. His investors assumed "Bernard Madoff must be legitimate. Otherwise, the SEC would object." When an intelligent SEC agent started asking questions, Bernard Madoff would successfully lie to them. If necessary, Bernard Madoff would appeal to the SEC agent's parasitic/psychopathic boss, and the SEC agent would be forced to back down.

The State financial system has high inflation and low interest rates. This pushed investors towards Madoff's fund, which had returns closer to true inflation. In a free market financial system, it would be harder to promote fraudulent schemes. In a free market financial system, everyone involved would be partially responsible, when there was corruption and fraud.

Harry Markopolis concluded that Madoff's fund was fraudulent. He could not publish his conclusions on his blog, due to State libel laws. He was actually scared that Madoff might try to murder him. Harry Markopolis had discovered a piece of the huge criminal conspiracy of the State. The reasoning is "If someone like Bernard Madoff is a fraud, then maybe the entire State financial system is a fraud." The entire State financial system *IS* a fraud. Bernard Madoff was able to fit in smoothly among the banksters, because most of them are psychopaths like him!

From the viewpoint of his fellow banksters, Bernard Madoff is obviously a swell guy. His fellow psychopaths were thinking "Bernard Madoff has the same personality type as me. Therefore, he's a good guy. If only I had as much emotional intelligence as Bernard Madoff, I would be really successful! Bernard Madoff is such an awesome role model!"

Of course, the flagrant Ponzi scheme was able to overcome Madoff's reputation. Similarly, Weiner's wiener pictures and lying was so evil that he was forced to resign. Scum like Madoff and Weiner fit in among State leaders, because most of them are psychopaths! However, flagrant evil can cause a psychopath to be exposed. Then, the excuse is "He's an isolated bad apple. There's nothing to see here." Evil people fit in perfectly among State leaders, because most of them are psychopaths!

Even though Weiner and Madoff were disgraced, the mainstream media isn't asking "How was someone so evil, able to rise to a position of State authority?" No insider will ask this question, because most insiders are psychopaths. The psychopaths won't ask that question. The non-psychopaths won't ask that question, because they're afraid of the psychopaths.

If most insiders were honest and intelligent, then evil people would be identified and excluded. When most insiders are psychopaths, the honest and intelligent people are identified and excluded! In a psychopath-controlled State, it's the honest people who seem defective and deviant.

Bernard Madoff's scam was facilitated by the State. That scam could not occur in a really free market. In a really free market, all the regulators and feeder funds would be 100% personally liable for investor losses.

In State "justice", there was no incentive for any of his associates to notice that he was doing something wrong. Even though the SEC failed miserably, there's no personal liability for the SEC agents who did a lousy job. In a free market financial system, if you say "Madoff's fund isn't a fraud.", then you're partially responsible for all the losses. State regulators have no personal responsibility.

The Madoff-psychopaths have high emotional intelligence and low/medium logical intelligence. Even Bernard Madoff has some intelligent subordinates who were helping him generate convincing-seeming fake statements. Some "abused productive" people were helping Madoff with his scam.

That's one reason I disagree with "9/11 Was An Inside Job". There are psychopaths who would do that, if they thought they could get away with it and profit from it. However, they could not actually pull it off unless some intelligent "abused productive" people were helping them. That would require too much cognitive dissonance. Most State leaders sincerely believe that they're the good guys. Even a psychopath rationalizes it with "Everyone else is doing the exact same thing as me. I'm not doing anything unusual or immoral." The State functions with psychopath-Madoffs pulling the strings, assisted by intelligent deluded people.

Before I cracked my pro-State brainwashing, I assumed that everyone else was honest and intelligent and trying to do the right thing, just like me. That is false. Some people are outright evil. Similarly, a psychopath thinks that everyone else is an evil scumbag like him. When a psychopath sees an honest and intelligent person asking questions and giving logical explanations, the psychopath sees that as just another evil manipulation trick.

The psychopath-Madoffs dominate, because most people are brainwashed to be victims. There occasionally are people with partial resistance. They are isolated and the psychopaths can easily discredit and remove them.

Suppose it's two intelligent people A and B vs. one psychopath C. First, C will eliminate the smarter one, A, while sucking up to B. Once A is gone, then the psychopath will go after B.

It's even worse if it's two psychopaths vs. two intelligent people. The two psychopaths will cooperate, while the intelligent people won't understand what's going on.

Even if the psychopaths don't have an explicit agreement, they will always cooperate to ruin an intelligent person asking questions.

I can nearly instantly identify psychopaths. Psychopaths can also do this. A psychopath can always instantly identify fellow psychopaths. Psychopaths can always count on each other for cooperation, when an intelligent person starts asking dangerous questions.

This creates a massive highly-coordinated evil conspiracy. Two psychopaths will always cooperate, when an intelligent person starts asking questions. Two psychopaths will always assist each other in their evil goals. The can count on their fellow psychopaths to return the favor later, even if there is no explicit quid pro quo agreement. In a very real sense, there's a "psychopath code of ethics".

Many State leaders are psychopath-Madoffs. The ones who are not psychopaths are intelligent and emotionally weak. They are completely manipulated by psychopaths. A psychopath can nearly instantly tell if someone is a fellow psychopath, someone intelligent-but-controllable, or someone with resistance. Psychoapths can nearly instantly identify someone with partial resistance or full resistance, just like I can nearly instantly identify psychopaths.

The "abused productive" people are continually fooled by the psychopath-Madoffs. They will always think "I failed because I did something wrong." rather than "I failed because that psychopath cheated me." The "abused productive" people are prevented from learning. It was a huge shock to realize "Almost everything I've ever been taught is a lie." The system of lies is so complete, that it's a shock to realize it all at once.

The State is the mechanism that psychopaths use to control everyone else. It is hopeless to "work within the system", because the psychopath-Madoffs set up the rules of the system so that psychopath-Madoffs will always be in control. Even if no single psychopath was aware of this, their combined coordinated efforts guarantee that evil people will always control the State. Even if one psychopath is discredited and removed, there's always someone else, just as evil, ready to replace him.

Via the State, the psychopath-Madoffs conspire to enslave everyone else. How can the "abused productive" people organize to fight the psychopaths? You can't work within the system. The best alternative is agorism.

The "natural predator" for the psychopath is the intelligent "abused productive" person. Originally, the USA had an economic system that was very friendly to "abused productive" people, with a mostly free market. Unfortunately, psychopaths have organized the system for their own benefit. Most psychopaths have their theft backed by "color of law". There is no way for an "abused productive" person to legally oppose them or compete with them.

Psychopaths have nearly completely neutralized their "natural predators". The current system is of the psychopaths, by the psychopaths, and for the psychopaths. Now, theft is seen as more desirable than actually working. The psychopath is held as society's role model, and not the productive person. Everyone wants to be a middleman, rather than being the guy who actually does the work. This leads to greater and greater corruption, greater and greater theft, and less and less real work. The only result can be complete economic collapse.

I see people like Jon Ronson studying psychopaths. He made a mistake in his analysis. Psychopath-criminal and psychopath-Madoff are two different personality types. It is wrong to study psychopaths, without understanding the distinction between an "abused productive" criminal, and the psychopath-Madoffs who live by manipulating others.

The psychopath-criminals are not really dangerous. They make stupid mistakes and eventually get caught. The psychopath-Madoffs are truly dangerous. Ironically, the psychopath-Madoffs tell people "Give us more power, so we can protect you from the psychopath-criminals!" Unfortunately, most of the State leaders are psychopath-Madoffs. I'm able to nearly instantly identify someone who's a psychopath-Madoff, just like they can instantly recognize that I'm resistant to their manipulations.

If insiders are serious about preventing collapse, they have to find a way to eliminate and neutralize the psychopath-Madoffs. Unfortunately, the problem is too severe and widespread. I'm not holding my breath waiting. It's too late for the current system. It's better to let it collapse and focus your energy on building a replacement. Agorism is the best strategy for recovering your freedom from the psychopaths, but I haven't actually tried it yet myself.